Author
Topic: Does this happen to you? (Read 14951 times)

mchernan

hehe, Dollyg you just aren't getting it, I said it was weird that they never have had an outsider or family member step foot into their home, for any reason. I did not say it was wrong, that seems to be your focal point. I said it was weird, I can think that it is weird can't I? I also indicated that the size of the home was truly not in relation to the amount of entertaining, just a side note that they have a huge (5 BR ornately decorated) home. YOU are the one who is focused on this. I realize you have posted XYZ number of times but this does not mean your input is the one and only truth. I ALSO indicated in my OP heading that I was seeking others with similar IL nusances. You have offered nothing to that effect, therefore I would appreciate no furter postings with your condescending nature.

My parents never have anyone from outside the immediate family over at their house either. They don't like throwing parties, specially at home. On social occasions, they prefer to take friends over to a restaurant.

But they never appear uninvited at my house and they would never invite people over to my place or ask me to host for them.

No one has to give parties. But throwing one at an unwilling third party is just plain rude.

Even if the in-laws had no room, they should ask the OP if she minds if they ask a few friends over - and accept that she has every right to say no.

Does your husband back you up on this? He may feel that this matter is unimportant or perhaps have told his parents that it is no problem at all.

Have you tried talking to them? Explain that you feel awkward when people you are not expecting show up, as you might not have cleaned up/have enough food/whatever other fact that your in-laws might accept.

mchernan, this is an etiquette site, and so posters were addressing the etiquette issues in your post. I don't think DottyG was being condescending, she was simply trying to make a point that didn't seem to be worded correctly, thus the multiple clarification posts. You are of course entitled to your opinion, and may think its weird that your in-laws never entertain, but again, on an etiquette board, its inevitable that others will point out that its their right to do so.

Aquigoth is correct. You cannot forbid someone to post here. I have been very nice in answering your question. Even to the point of posting that you do have a very valid complaint and that I've suspected that you merely chose a word that has a different connotation to it than you might be realizing. I have even gone as far as trying to get things redirected to what I think you're actually asking.

Can you think it's "weird"? Of course you can. By all means feel free to feel any which way you choose. And, I have never said that my point is the only "truth." But, it is not right of you to say that I am no longer allowed to voice an opinion here. You posted at an etiquette site. I have an opinion. I'm sorry that you don't like that opinion. My opinion may not even be completely right. But, it's no less of a right for me to have mine as it is to have yours.

I fail to see where you've found what I've said "condescending" when I've even posted that I agree with you. Several times, I have stated this. Directly stated this. ITALICIZED it even! I have put a tone into my postings to where you would understand that I AM on your side and that I've agreed with you! That's not condescending!

Edited to add BOLD - the italics weren't working. Will even say it again, so that everyone is clear on this......THE OP'S IN-LAWS ARE DOING SOMETHING RUDE. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS FACT. And, since it appears that there's a slight disagreement between the wording, I'm fine with dropping the issue of the "size of the house as to how many people should be invited in" issue. If that's the source of the upset, fine. I'm ok with dropping it.

(And, OP, I actually am a nice person. Truly I am. And, it's ok if we don't, always, agree here. That's the beauty of this place. We can disagree in one thread and be "best friends" in another one. It's one of the things people like here. I'm sorry that your 1st thread in here has, in your mind, turned nasty. That was not my intent at all. I do welcome you and hope that you look around the place and find it a comfortable - and enlightening - place to be. We all learn a lot here. It's a warm and welcoming place that'll become addictive before you know it! )

OP, to ease your mind and to show you that I'm extending the hand of peace (olive branch*) here, I'm going to alert the mods to this thread, just in case I've done something wrong. I'd never want to do something to make someone unhappy, so I'm willing to do that. Ok?

* It's an OLIVE BRANCH! I have been sitting here racking my brain to remember what kind of "branch" it is when you try to make peace with someone. I came up with every kind I could think of, but not "olive"! It finally came to me, so I've edited my post to finally add it in!

You have offered nothing to that effect, therefore I would appreciate no furter postings with your condescending nature.

When you post on a public forum, you run the risk that the public will answer you, and not always in the way you desire. I think that Dotty has brought up some valid points to consider (not just for you, but for everyone in general.) and she has not been condescending in her posts, rather she is frustrated that you don't seem to understand that she is agreeing with you.

Your in-laws are definitely rude for entertaining in your home. What does your DH think about their behavior (sorry if I missed it in reading through the thread)? He should be the one to explain to them that you both love seeing them, but unless you issue the invitation, no more entertaining is to be done in your home.

As for the size of their home, it is not rude to have the space to entertain and not do so. If that were true, then the reverse (converse?) would be true, i.e., it would be rude to entertain in a small home.

Honestly, with the introduction of McMansions, five bedrooms isn't necessarily that big.

"Dotty, I think you are overreacting and being unduly harsh to the OP."

I think I must toss my lot in with DottyG on this one. The original post's etiquette question was functionally, "Do other people have in-laws that invite a party over to your house? (with 20 hour notice?)" DottyG and others (and I for that matter) concur that this is rude of her in-laws.

However, the post opened with "My in-laws have a huge home, but they never entertain. They invite us over for the holidays and such, but NOBODY outside the immediate family has ever stepped foot into the house (weird)." If this is to be taken as a point in the discussion about the in-laws inviting themselves over, then it points out that mchernan feels it's part of the discussion. If it's simply mentioned as something weird, then it's not a violation of etiquette and therefore it's not relevant. The problem is that its inclusion understandably implies relevance, and if it's considered relevant then it's impolite on mchernan's part to imply that they're obliged to entertain. If that's not her intention, then why include it?

I can see an implied relevance - they want to entertain, have room to do it, and yet prefer to use other people's homes to do it. The combination of the three is weird, IMO. Simply having a large house and not entertaining is not.

Huh, we have the smallest house in the County, And we're always entertaining.It's the size oh your heart that matters, Not the house

I disagree. We live in a tiny condo in Paradise (Waikiki). It's 550 square feet including 175 s.f. of lanai (balcony). We don't have room for a couch or a coffee table. We have a tiny table & 2 chairs. We seldom entertain. I think we have had company to dinner on the average of once a year & we've lived here for 13 years. We can fit another couple in at the table, but it's tight & I'm sitting on a stool. I've had more people over to dinner, but I served the food buffet style in the kitchen & half the people sat on the lanai. I feel uncomfortable and unhospitable inviting people over and asking them to sit in plastic chairs outside & eat off disposable plastic plates.

Logged

"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."

The problem is that its inclusion understandably implies relevance, and if it's considered relevant then it's impolite on mchernan's part to imply that they're obliged to entertain. If that's not her intention, then why include it?

Virg

The comment about the size of their house wasn't just included, it came first. When I studied writing, we were taught to put your best point at the beginning. In certain circumstances, it is also effective to start with your second strongest argument & end with the strongest as what people read last stays with them. This may explain why the comment stuck in Dottyg's craw.

I've posted here & on other boards. I really enjoy a good debate. "Good" means respectful. IMHO Dottyg could have phrased her comments a bit more tactfully & the OP could have taken another 5 minutes to calm down before posting her reply. Dottyg has certainly come back to make amends & I hope OP does too. Being able to talk through a disagreement & come out the other side with respect for each other is a quality of a civilized person.

My in laws (& my family) live thousands of miles away, so this situation just doesn't apply to me. I can't imagine anyone inviting people to party in my tiny condo. I don't mind if people invite themselves over. We have a friend who cares for her elderly parents. She'll call & ask if she can come over for a break. Our best friends, who have 4 daughters, will call & say they are in the neighborhood & ask if it is a good time for a visit. They live an hour away & we never see our *nieces* enough, so they, too, know that they are always welcome.

Logged

"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."

I can see an implied relevance - they want to entertain, have room to do it, and yet prefer to use other people's homes to do it. The combination of the three is weird, IMO. Simply having a large house and not entertaining is not.

I agree. If the OP had said something like, "My in-laws have a large house and they never have anyone over - isn't that weird?" then her comment would have no point. However, given that they seem to do their entertaining in the OP's home instead of her own, her comment about the size of their house is relevant, since it puts some additional context around the actual etiquette problem of the ILs entertaining in the OP's home.

Logged

ganjin

I saw the context of the "huge house" as a beginning of an explanation, and as such, it IS an important bit of information. They have a huge house, but can't be bothered with company, so they intrude on her home and goodwill to entertain people of their own choosing in HER home. I get that. I sympathize with that, and agree that they should get better manners or at least a clue.

Saying "You shouldn't have said big house FIRST" is clouding the issue. They have room, they won't entertain there, and it is irritating that they foist themselves AND what should be THEIR guests off on her.

A lot of posts have been arguing syntax or context, and the size of their house IS important, at least to the poster, because they HAVE room, but make HER their scapegoat, trotting in a bit of food now and then to smooth the waters, and taking her time and hospitality and claiming it as their own, with no trouble to them.

OP sounds as if she wouldn't care if they were hermits, or if they entertained the Sixth Fleet every weekend---she doesn't want to impose her will on them, just so they didn't impose on her so much.

In a similar situation, I would imagine it would at least occur to any of us: Why do they bring their company over HERE all the time, inconveniencing me, when they have all that ROOM?

Logged

ninja710

It does seem odd to me when people don't entertain, even though it seems like fewer and fewer people exercise the gift of hospitality. And especially, when there doesn't seem to be a good excuse - limited room or funds available for instance. I do try to keep it to myself, though (the fact that I think it's odd).

My family often entertained relatives and neighbors, and it seems a natural thing to me. My husband has become a very hospitable man, but it wasn't modeled to him at all in his growing up years. When we were first married, it was difficult for me that he didn't want to invite anyone to our home, and I'm really glad that he was able to turn it around. We entertained lots of people in our 2 bedroom, 900 sq ft house, and even more now that we have 4 bedrooms and 3200 sq ft.

One family complained that no one in our church had ever invited them to their home. We had them over for an evening soon after that. That was at least 15 years ago and they have made no effort to reciprocate. Others who have the same complaint have been to our house for group events at least 5 times (I guess that doesn't count?) As a result, when people say things like this I am inclined to say, "how many people have *you* invited to your home?"

I can see an implied relevance - they want to entertain, have room to do it, and yet prefer to use other people's homes to do it. The combination of the three is weird, IMO. Simply having a large house and not entertaining is not.

That's a very good way of putting it! The wording and order may have been a bit off, but I took the comment about the large house merely as a way of pointing out that they don't live in a studio.